There were people plotting to attack Iraq (that's even before 9/11, See Footnote 1 below), that we do know. And what is described in The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012 is disturbing.
The writer says, "By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation."
"But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."
Let's not be naive, people do scheme to get us into wars and it looks like these guys rationalized arguing that the intel was a trick. Think about that and think about the reason they gave for insisting it was a trick.
You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html
Mainstream media really doesn't allow for a fair forum for public discussion of the fact that there are people who work to get us into wars and are doing so for illegitimate reasons. It is common practice in elite circles to act like it is far-fetched to think powerful Americans scheme to get our country into wars. If you look at the content of public discourse broadcast by mass media, the very idea that there would be people working for underhanded reasons to get us into wars is simply not represented or so infrequently represented that it is basically not at all. But take a look at what the father of the Constitution said about this, notice he isn't saying we can chalk the war drive up to simply people trying to do the right thing!:
"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s15.html
Footnote 1: "The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House" "1/30/01
And don't over look the fact that the Bush Administration dismissed warnings of a bin Laden attack and if your read the excuse for dismissing the warnings it is clear that the agenda of starting a war with Iraq was why they dismissed the warnings of a bin Laden attack, see for yourself: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html (and the agenda was so dirty that they STILL won't release all the PDBs Bush received before 9/11! Look for yourself) (STILL NOT MADE PUBLIC!) "That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0